VIKRAM ASHOK JOGANI AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                                                                                  05-WP-764-2025.doc


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                           WRIT PETITION NO.764 OF 2025
ARJUN
VITTHAL
KUDHEKAR              Vikram Ashok Jogani & Ors.                                 ...Petitioners
Digitally signed by
                              Versus
ARJUN VITTHAL         The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                            ...Respondents
KUDHEKAR
Date: 2026.07.30
14:37:14 +0530                                        ——————
                      Mr. Jugal Kanani, for the Petitioners.
                      Ms. S. M. Yadav, APP, for the Respondent-State.
                      Mr. Kaushik Mhatre a/w Sanket Dhawan & Shubham Yadav, for
                      Respondent No.2.
                                                      ——————
                                                                Coram: Madhav J. Jamdar, J.
                                                                Date: July 27, 2026
                      P.C.:

                      1.      Heard Mr. Kanani, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners,

                      Ms. Yadav, learned APP for the State and Mr. Mhatre, learned Counsel

                      appearing for Respondent No.2.

                      2.      The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the legality and validity of

                      the Order dated 21st December 2023 passed by the learned Additional

                      Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 47th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, below

                      Exhibit-240 in CC No.856/PW/2011. The said application bearing Exhibit-

                      240 has been 9led on behalf of the Petitioners i.e. Original Accused

                      Nos.2, 3 and 4 under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

                      1973, seeking recall of PW-1 and PW-2 for further cross-examination.



                      Arjun                                 1
                                                        05-WP-764-2025.doc


The said Application was rejected by the impugned Order dated 21st

December 2023.

3.      Mr. Kanani, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, points out

Paragraph Nos.10 and 11 of the Application bearing Exhibit-240 dated

26th October 2023 and submits that for the reasons set out in said

paragraph, it is necessary to recall the witnesses. He submits that the

witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 are sought to be recalled as by examining the

PW-4 the Advocate for the First Informant caused production of a letter

dated 22nd September 2011 (Exhibit-124), which was never part of the

Charge-sheet and through PW-7 documents (Exhibits 178-181) were

sought to be produced. These documents are the registered entries

maintained by M/s. Diamond & Gem Development Corporation Ltd. He,

therefore, submits that PW-1 and PW-2 be allowed to recalled.

4.      On the other hand, Mr. Mhatre, learned Counsel for Respondent

No.2, submits that the letter dated 22nd September 2011 was part of

the Charge-sheet. He submits that there is reference to Exhibits 178-

181 in the said letter. He points out the said letter dated 22nd

September 2011 at Page 707 of the AAdavit-in-Reply. He submits that

the said letter is on Page No.264 of the Charge-sheet. He also points out

the Order dated 24th September 2021 passed by the learned Additional

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 47th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, below

Exhibit-162 in Case No.856/PW/2011 (Pages 815-817). The said


Arjun                              2
                                                        05-WP-764-2025.doc


Application has been 9led for calling the witness Prashant Jha i.e. PW-7.

He, more particularly, points out Paragraph No.7 of the said Order

dated 24th September 2021. He, therefore, submits that no

interference in the impugned order is warranted.

5.      Perusal of the record shows that although it is the speci9c

contention raised in the said Application bearing Exhibit-240 that letter

dated 22nd September 2011 is not the part of the Charge-sheet, the

same is the part of the Charge-sheet and is at Page No.264 of the

Charge-sheet. The said letter is produced at Page 707 of the AAdavit-in-

Reply. A scanned copy of the said letter is reproduced herein below for

ready reference:




Arjun                              3
                                                     05-WP-764-2025.doc




The said letter speci9cally makes reference to the Invoice Number and

Date and Date of Delivery of four letters which are mentioned in the

register.


Arjun                            4
                                                             05-WP-764-2025.doc


6.       Perusal of the Order dated 24th September 2021 passed by the

learned      Additional   Chief   Metropolitan     Magistrate,   47 th    Court,

Esplanade, Mumbai, below Exhibit-162 in Case No.856/PW/2011 which

has been 9led for calling the witness Prashant Jha for examination-in-

chief, shows that the said Application was 9led for exhibiting the entries

mentioned in the Import Delivery register with respect to invoices dated

25th January 2011, 26th January 2011, 31st January 2011 and 4th

February 2011. It is signi9cant to note Paragraph No.7 of the said Order

dated 24th September 2021, which reads as under:

        “7.     Considering the facts and circumstances of the case to
        prove entries dated 25.01.2011, 26.01.2011, 31.01.2011 and
        04.02.2011, prosecution wants to examine this witness. The
        reference of this witness is in the evidence of P.W. 4 Abhay
        Manohar Desai who deposed that relevant entries mentioned
        in register maintained by Custodian and after verifying entries
        he issued letter to Investigation O6cer of Economic O8ences
        Wing. It shows that already entries are there and this witness
        is custodian of this register. Therefore no new fact will come
        on record. Already those entries are on record. Considering the
        nature of evidence which prosecution wants to bring on
        record as there is opportunity of cross-examination to the
        accused no prejudice would cause to him. However,
        prosecution wants to examine his as regards documents which
        are already on record. …”

7.       Thus, in fact, PW-4 Abhay Manohar Desai has also made reference

to the said letters and reference to these entries, as noted herein above

in the letter dated 22nd September 2011 which is already produced at

Page 264 of the Charge-sheet.




Arjun                                  5
                                                          05-WP-764-2025.doc


8.      Thus, in these circumstances, no interference in the impugned

Order is warranted.

9.      Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.



                                                  [Madhav J. Jamdar, J.]




Arjun                                6